Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

[maccy]

The event did generate a lot of heat, persistant heat, that's one of the observations that needs to be accounted for. Enough heat to expand the dust cloud, melt cars, keep the rubble hot for months, etc.

If the dust cloud was expanded by heat, why didn't it burn the people caught in the dust cloud?

Underground fire example:

Blazes can smoulder for decades or even centuries, exploding into new life as galleries collapse to create fresh draughts of oxygen.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-15-2003-35576.asp

We were talking about visible light. Perhaps the radiation released is above/below the visible spectrum.

Are you aware of any process by which the temperature of steel is raised without generating light?

I will concede I don't know. You guys may be right, there may be fundamental impossibilities involved in the Wood/Reynolds hypothesis. I'd like to learn more.

I find this slightly encouraging. Really, study some science: I think you'd enjoy it!

 

[R.Mackey]

sigh

For anyone still reading, this is what happens when a NASA scientist with degrees in mathematics, physics, and engineering (that's me) tries to argue with a Troother who is a professional musician armed only with blind conviction (that's TruthSeeker1234).

Mackey, you've fallen into the same logical trap as those who claim CD is impossible because it would require some too-large quantity of explosives. On the one hand, you say GPE alone is sufficient to explain all the work observed, then you turn around and say it is impossible to bring enough energy into the system to explain all the work. It's self-contradictory.

Strawman. I say the GPE, equal to 116 tons of TNT per tower, is plenty. I also say that if you're injecting that much energy through any means other than gravity, it would have been immediately obvious.

There is no logical trap. You simply fail to understand. Even after hundreds of corrections. Deliberate or severe learning disability, who can tell?

Now, I agree with you that a huge source of energy is needed. Perhpas you are right that it is not feasible to put such a large power supply in orbit. Perhaps the power supply is on the ground, and is aimed at orbiting reflectors. There is no doubt that the US military has been developing just such weapons for many decades. The question is how far along they are.

This is utter speculation, based on absolutely nothing. The US Military has never attempted to develop space-based weapons on this scale. Never. It has absolutely no military mission.

You're arguing my physics background and direct experience with space versus your fantasy.

Perhaps Judy Wood is wrong, and Steven Jones is right after all. Perhaps there are more mundane explanations for the observations, but thusfar I haven't heard any complete theory of 9/11 that satisfies my scientific curiosity.

You have no scientific curiosity. If you had, you'd have learned much more on your own, and you would be able to distinguish an impossible hypothesis (Judy Woods) versus a reasonable one (NIST).

Your curiosity is not for science. It's for fantasy.

Nothing wrong with that so long as it's channeled in the right direction. Unfortunately, you choose to pour it all into paranoia. Poor choice.

 

[Gravy]

For anyone still reading, this is what happens when a NASA scientist with degrees in mathematics, physics, and engineering (that's me) tries to argue with a Troother who is a professional musician armed only with blind conviction (that's TruthSeeker1234).

I hope you take some solace in the fact that you have been nominated for sainthood in the Church of The FSM, whereas TS is consigned to an eternity of writing ditties about Judy Wood.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Strawman. I say the GPE, equal to 116 tons of TNT per tower, is plenty. I also say that if you're injecting that much energy through any means other than gravity, it would have been immediately obvious.

How much more obvious could it be than this?

 

[Pardalis]

Ditties about Judy Wood the deity?

 

[Gravy]

One thing to keep in mind about the north tower collapse is that it kicked up much of the dust that had fallen in the south tower collapse.

 

[stateofgrace]

How much more obvious could it be than this?
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image119.jpg

It is so obvious that every single institute of professional engineers on the planet don’t even entertain your theories.

Obviously.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

The US Military has never attempted to develop space-based weapons on this scale. Never. It has absolutely no military mission.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/occppr05.htm

 

[maccy]

How much more obvious could it be than this?
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image119.jpg

That's a large building falling down, obviously.

 

[Pardalis]

That's a large building falling down, obviously.

And thousands of lives being extinguished, unfortunately.

 

[Pardalis]

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/occppr05.htm

TS, why hasn't the US army used any of these laser weapons in the war in Iraq yet?

 

[Oliver]

TS, why hasn't the US army used any of these laser weapons in the war in Iraq yet?

THEY DID! No kidding if this docu is meant seriously...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8361811662480560988&q=2+star+general

 

[Gravy]

Holy crap. TS apparently thinks that a space-based laser capable of disabling a missile in space would also be capable of destroying the Twin Towers. Can Ace possibly get any more foolish? Stay tuned!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/occppr05.htm

perhaps you shoudl reread mackey's statement:

This is utter speculation, based on absolutely nothing. The US Military has never attempted to develop space-based weapons on this scale. Never. It has absolutely no military mission.

then go reread those articles you linked and decide if those lasers would be capable of destroying the WTC

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

perhaps you shoudl reread mackey's statement:



then go reread those articles you linked and decide if those lasers would be capable of destroying the WTC

Those weapons are not capable of destroying the WTC. The idea is that maybe they have developed stuff that is classified. I seem to remember them denying the existance of stealth technology for a long time, e.g.

Mackey's assertion that such technology would have no military mission, is, frankly silly. Of course it would.

 

[R.Mackey]

perhaps you shoudl reread mackey's statement:

This is utter speculation, based on absolutely nothing. The US Military has never attempted to develop space-based weapons on this scale. Never. It has absolutely no military mission.

Correct. From my lengthy post on orbital weapon design:

The fundamental roadblock is the ability to put power on the ground. As we saw above, the only credible approach is to use expendables, viz. explosives. In this case, the orbiting beam weapon offers no advantages over simply putting those same explosives on target. The difficulty and cost associated with the orbiting platform, coupled with the nonexistence of high performance beam emitters to begin with, makes this a complete non-starter.

For rare cases where speed is needed, but not much energy, like when you're trying to hit projectiles moving Mach 10 and up out of the air (ICBMs) and the cost of not doing so is severe, beam weapons might make sense. But it makes no sense at all to pursue this technology for destroying ground targets.

The beam weapon design I considered would cost over $100 Billion, and would be less effective than four one-ton laser-guided bombs.

TruthSeeker1234, your outlook is quite, quite mad.

 

[Pardalis]

Maybe the military are working on a weapon that would vaporise trolls at their computers?

Who knows?

The TrollSeeker.

 

[Gravy]

Maybe the military are working on a weapon that would vaporise trolls at their computers?

Turning them into chemtrolls?

 

[maccy]

Those weapons are not capable of destroying the WTC. The idea is that maybe they have developed stuff that is classified. I seem to remember them denying the existance of stealth technology for a long time.

Yes but to convince us that this is even a possibility you'll have to come forward with a plausible hypothetical weapon. And a hypothesis for how this weapon brought the towers down.

Otherwise, you may as well say they were brought down by magic. Secret military magic.

Once you've laid out your hypothesis I'd suggest you explain why the government hasn't used this weapon anywhere else in the world.

 

[Oliver]

Maybe the military are working on a weapon that would vaporise trolls at their computers?

Who knows?

Could you take a look to the video an tell me what
you think about it, Pardalis?

It´s 25 minutes long and about secret laser- and
microwave-weapons. Also used in iraq. (they claim)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8361811662480560988&q=2+star+general